A link to a statement saying Samsung didn't copy the design of the iPad on the front page of Apple's U.K. website has been declared non-compliant with a court order, forcing Apple to rewrite it and post it more prominently within two days.

The altered statement will have to remain on the front page of Apple's U.K. website until December 14, according toThe Guardian. The revised statement must be posted by Apple within 48 hours.

"I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Judge Robin Jacob said, according toBloomberg. "That is a plain breach of the order."

Last week, Apple updated its site with a link at the bottom entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgement." Clicking the link takes users to a blank page with no links, logos or other information.

The site lets visitors know that the High Court of Justice in England and Wales ruled on July 9, 2012, that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe on Apple's design patent No. 0000181607-0001. It also quotes the judge as saying Samsung's products are "not as cool" as Apple's.

But at a hearing held in London Thursday morning, the judge told Apple it must change the wording of the statement within the next two days. The revised statement must have an 11-point font and be displayed on the company's website front page.

The iPhone maker told the judge it would need at least 14 days to put a revised statement on its site, but one judge said he "cannot believe" it would take so long.

The statements about Samsung devices being "not as cool" came from a ruling by Judge Colin Birss in July, when he found that Samsung's products were distinctive from Apple. Apple attempted to appeal the decision, but lost last month.

Birss ordered Apple to run advertisements on its UK website as well as in British magazines and newspapers, declaring Samsung did not copy the iPad. The Web notice is to remain active at least six months, while other ads would be taken out in various print publications as a consolation for the "damaging impression" Samsung suffered a result of the suit.

The judges are taking this personally. No apology was ever order. Apple was required to make a statement of fact in order to dispel confusion by potential customers. They did this to the letter, even pasting exactly the wording that was ordered. They followed every part of what they were instructed to do. They worst one can claim is that they added additional facts to their statement. But the judges here say that they think Apple is in breach of the order because they included statements that were "incorrect" and "untrue". I'd ask the judges to point out a single statement in Apple's notice that was untrue or incorrect.

They won't be able to. And that shows that this is personal. The judges feel that Apple gave them the finger, I think mainly because the media portrayed it that way. The media mistakenly reported the notice by Apple as being an apology and and sarcastic one at that. But there was no apology ordered. The order specifically said it was not meant to make Apple lose face but only to clarify the status of the case to potential buyers. They did this. But the judges have their panties all bunched up because the media portrayed it as Apple insulting them and they bought into it.

It's not like the UK can put Apple in jail. They should really give this judge the middle finger and see what happens. I predict nothing at all. Again, worst case scenario is they can no longer sell in the UK. Small country; no big loss.

Couldn't Apple just refuse? What's the worst that could happen? They'll make the UK angry? Surely they can afford to pull out of that market if it comes to that. It's a fairly small market.
No offense intended to UK customers, but a court demanding a written apology like this is just silly.

The absolute worst thing that could happen would be imprisonment for contempt of court. No, the company can't be put in jail but owners and directors can be.

That's the extreme worst case scenario though. More likely will be a fine, which unpaid could lead to seizure of assets.

Globally, the UK market is pretty small but it's a big market for Apple. Two of the three largest Apple stores in the world are located in London. Apple could afford to pull out of the UK market just as the could afford to pull out of the US market. Just because something is possible doesn't make it a good idea though.

The law in England is very clear about this kind of order. It isn't the judge laying down font sizes and locations to his own taste. There is pre-existing guidance.

Couldn't Apple just refuse? What's the worst that could happen? They'll make the UK angry? Surely they can afford to pull out of that market if it comes to that. It's a fairly small market.
No offense intended to UK customers, but a court demanding a written apology like this is just silly.

What I think is even funnier is that the only people that read it know it's been done by the court and the court is being stupid and most people just laugh at it.

I think Apple should state that the only reason why they are stating it is because they were ordered to, but they don't take the same position and neither do other courts in other countries.

The judge on this case is OBVIOUSLY a wanker. I thought their apology was appropriately stated the first time. They were quoting the judge and he didn't give them specific verbiage originally did he?

It's not like the UK can put Apple in jail. They should really give this judge the middle finger and see what happens. I predict nothing at all. Again, worst case scenario is they can no longer sell in the UK. Small country; no big loss.

Talk about material for a Monty Python skit.. The apology ruling was foolish and Apple did what most of us would have done if we were in Apple's position. Biriss's personal comment about 'coolness' when it comes to an Apple product of course triggered media attention that focused attention on the wide difference in legal opinion between the preliminary German ruling that led to a ban and the UK court findings of exoneration. So this 'apology' had as much to do with the politics of the UK vs the EU as it pertained to 'turf,' as it did for Apple losing the (counter) claims. Instead of dying down in the media, the Apple web link fanned the flames of outrage from the UK - not just the judges, but residents who felt Apple was mocking the UK. I must say that Jacob's remarks seem at odds about his earlier statement that this was not intended to make Apple grovel. This is all about making Apple grovel.

What they should do is do exactly what the judge states, then under his little thing post, besides the phrase "per court order and court wording", to list all of the other places in the world that Apple is winning judgments in their favor against Sammy for the design. To show that UK is in the minority of siding with Sammy.

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon. I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.

So where are all the blowhards who were saying this couldn't possibly happen because Apple were completely, demonstrably in the right?

Good decision, Apple need to be slapped down when they act out.

No one said it couldn't happen. They said nothing should happen because Apple obeyed the order exactly as given. The judges were convinced that Apple offended them and are acting out on that. No shortage of softheaded judges in the UK.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

It's not like the UK can put Apple in jail. They should really give this judge the middle finger and see what happens. I predict nothing at all. Again, worst case scenario is they can no longer sell in the UK. Small country; no big loss.

Amazing business sense. One minor legal disagreement... total withdrawal from the 7th biggest economy in the world. Apple are bound to snap up someone with such acumen.

For those that agree with this new ruling, a question. The judges explained their ruling as being based on Apple breaching their order by including untrue and incorrect statements in their notice. Please list for us all of the incorrect and untrue statements in Apple's notice.

We'll wait.

Until then, without any untrue and incorrect statements, the judge's excuses for this new ruling appear to be based on personal bias and feelings of being insulted (wrongly) and so have no basis.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

Talk about material for a Monty Python skit.. The apology ruling was foolish and Apple did what most of us would have done if we were in Apple's position. Biriss's personal comment about 'coolness' when it comes to an Apple product of course triggered media attention that focused attention on the wide difference in legal opinion between the preliminary German ruling that led to a ban and the UK court findings of exoneration. So this 'apology' had as much to do with the politics of the UK vs the EU as it pertained to 'turf,' as it did for Apple losing the (counter) claims. Instead of dying down in the media, the Apple web link fanned the flames of outrage from the UK - not just the judges, but residents who felt Apple was mocking the UK. I must say that Jacob's remarks seem at odds about his earlier statement that this was not intended to make Apple grovel. This is all about making Apple grovel.

I quite like the punishment since it's hard to really punish a company that brings in billions in a month in revenue. That said, the judge has failed to be precise in his punishment which allowed for a great deal of interpretation as we're seeing now. Apple followed it exactly but he was too lazy, stupid, or merely didn't think it through and now he says it's not good enough with an implication of that isn't what he meant. Can UK courts actually operate that way? I don't know but I sure hope not.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Apple followed it exactly but he was too lazy, stupid, or merely didn't didn't think it through and now he says it's not good enough with an implication of that isn't what he meant. Can UK courts actually operate that way? I don't know but I sure hope not.

As I've already stated, there's very clear pre-existing rules on the printing (electronically or otherwise) of apologies like this one. Apple's lawyers would have been aware of these rules before the statement was posted on Apple's website.

I find it interesting that the Apple defenderati that said the UK judge should have dictated the wording of the statement for Apple to put on the website are now criticising the UK legal system for treating its subjects like children.

For those that agree with this new ruling, a question. The judges explained their ruling as being based on Apple breaching their order by including untrue and incorrect statements in their notice. Please list for us all of the incorrect and untrue statements in Apple's notice.

We'll wait.

Until then, without any untrue and incorrect statements, the judge's excuses for this new ruling appear to be based on personal bias and feelings of being insulted (wrongly) and so have no basis.

"The court’s initial order to post a notice was designed to correct the impression that the South Korean company was copying Apple’s product. Apple’s post, criticized by judges today, inserted four paragraphs including excerpts of the original “cool” ruling and details of similar German lawsuits that the court today said weren’t true."

Apple were told what to write, and where to post it.

Apple decided to post something else (by adding four paragraphs), and they didn't post it on the web site's front page, as instructed.

Apple has been slapped down for it.

Some people here are way too protective of Apple. Apple was in the wrong according to UK law. Their actions show utter disrespect and contempt for UK law, and by extension, the UK and its inhabitants.

Couldn't Apple just refuse? What's the worst that could happen? They'll make the UK angry? Surely they can afford to pull out of that market if it comes to that. It's a fairly small market.
No offense intended to UK customers, but a court demanding a written apology like this is just silly.

As far as I am aware the UK is Apple's most profitable market outside of the US.

Apple DID NOT comply with the court order. There are very specific rules for placement and font size in cases like this. The judge has confirmed that Apple broke these rules.

If you believe that the judge is making this up as he goes along then you have no idea about how the English legal system works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichL

As I've already stated, there's very clear pre-existing rules on the printing (electronically or otherwise) of apologies like this one. Apple's lawyers would have been aware of these rules before the statement was posted on Apple's website.

And which of these rules did Apple supposedly violate?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.